In a recent decision, the Supreme Court looked into whether the police can freeze bank accounts when dealing with cases related to corruption. The case involved Anil Kumar Dey, whose accounts were frozen during an investigation into his son's alleged corruption.
The Case Begins: July 2019
- Initial Inquiry: Kalyan Mandal, a Sub-Inspector at the Anti-Corruption Branch in West Bengal, started looking into Prabir Kumar Dey Sarkar, Anil's son. The complaint, dated July 30, 2019, claimed that Prabir had accumulated wealth that did not match his known sources of income.
Freezing the Assets: March 2023
- Court's Decision: On March 28, 2023, the City Sessions Court in Calcutta turned down Anil Kumar Dey's request to unfreeze his fixed deposits, citing ongoing investigations into his son's assets.
Legal Sanctions and Charges: April-May 2024
- Prosecution Sanction: The West Bengal government approved legal action against Prabir on April 22, 2024.
- Charges Filed: By May 13, 2024, a document listing charges named four accused, including Prabir and his father Anil, accusing them of having unexplained wealth and multiple fixed deposits.
High Court's Intervention: October 2024
- High Court Ruling: The Calcutta High Court reversed the trial court's decision, ordering the unfreezing of accounts on October 4, 2024. The court argued that the freezing was done using the wrong legal rule.
Supreme Court's Final Say: December 2025
- Supreme Court Ruling: On December 10, 2025, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashanna B. Varale, overturned the High Court's decision. The judgment clarified that the powers under the corruption law and criminal procedure law are separate but can be used together.
"The powers under Section 18A of the PC Act and Section 102, CrPC are not mutually exclusive," stated Justice Sanjay Karol.
Summary of the Verdict
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, meaning further legal proceedings can happen regarding the seized assets. If the accounts have been released, Anil must either redeposit the funds or provide a bank guarantee within three weeks.
This case highlights the complexities of legal procedures in corruption cases and the interpretation of overlapping powers under different legal frameworks.
